New-York tribune., 1887-11-22
THE SCHOLTEN DISASTER.

AS fuller news comes In concerning inc losS
of tho steamer Scholten the presumption that
she was run into by another steamer which was
not showing lights is strengthened; and the
responsibility almost certainly rests upon the
collier Rosa Mary. ID is not credible that so
cautious and vigilant seaman as Captain Taat
ran on to an anchored vessel, nor does the de-
scription of the SchOltens injuries warrant such
view. The captain of the Rosa Mary says he
was at anchor when some vessel ran into him.
But he would be very apt to claim that he was
at anchor if, as is strongly suspected, he was
running at full speed with none but anchor
lights out. Should it prove that he was SO
running, in a crowded scaway and thick
weather, it will be evident that his criminal
responsibility cannot be estimated at less than
manslaughter. The case no doubt Will DO
vigorously investigated, as the Dutch Govern
ment is bound TO look closely after the interests
Of it's people, and as the English law Is very
strict in matters of the kind There are, how
ever. other questions to be answered besides the
one as to who is directly accountable for the
disaster, and the first of these is as to the sud-
den sinking of the Scholten.
Il is understood that she was fitted with
watcr-tight bulkheads and the presumption
is that they were closed first because the cap
tain was a careful man; second, because, had
they been open she would probably have gone
down in five minutes. The explanation of her
sinking when she did may perhaps be found
in the fact that after the collision Captain IaaI
headed her for Dover and ran her at full speed
Judging from the accounts OF the collision she
was probably so struck as to open two OF her
compartments. The force OF the lnrushlng
water, increased tenfold as it must have Deen
by the pressure Of the forward movement, may
have broken down the other bulkhcads one
after another, until she ceased to have buoyancy
enough to float her. 1t is true that the kosa
Marv seems to have been saved by her COM
partments, but then she was not nearly 80
much injured as the Scholten, and the prob
ability is that she was taken into port very
slowly. The question Of the boats is different
though it is complicated by the action of the
Scholten's crew. They behaved scandalously
and threw off all discipline. Had they done
their duty it is possible that all the 'ifeboatS
might have been launched. Even then there
is no certainty that they would have held all
the passengers, however.
At this point we reach danger common TO all
modern passenger steamers. None or tsaem
carry enough boats to save their passengers
during the busy season. This is notorious
and it is even justified by some ship-owncrs'
That the Schoten should have followed tho
general practice in this respect is quite natural
though the result was lamentable. But mas
much as it was clearly the bad conduct OF the
crew as much as anything that prevented sew
cral of the boats from being used to save life
it is not fair with our present imperfect knowi-
edge of the facts to assume that
the boats would not have been sutil-
cient had they been available. Captain
Taat, unhappily, is Dead and can give
no testimony, but the second mate OF the
Scboltcn. who was also on the bridge at the
time of the collision. is positive that the steamer
which ran into her was in rapid motion and not
anchored 1t is a shocking disaster, however
regarded. and since there can be no reasonable
donbt that it was the consequence OF gross
neglect of law and duty, punishment should la'
heavily when the responsibility for it Is once
Gved